joel the ornery wrote:i'd be inclined to listen to solutions from someone that has a solvent state government.

you're state isn't, therefore i don't.

I think there are only three solvent states: Montana, Arkansas or North Dakota. No population, or no services. They have nothing to spend their money on and have nothing else to brag about. Now stop being so darned ornery.

JK

JKhttp://www.mudskippercafe.comWhen I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.

joel the ornery wrote:i'd be inclined to listen to solutions from someone that has a solvent state government.

you're state isn't, therefore i don't.

Then take a look at North Dakota. 3.5% unemployment
and they have the country's only State Bank...that bank pays for infrastructure in ND, 1% loans to farmers and has about i Billion in reserves.
They're doing something right. State banks would remove 1/3 the cost of any state's construction projects...imagine that? Now ask yourself what ass aholic entity would want to keep that from the people....both Dems and Reps need it? Yep...ya guessed it....Wall St.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

joel the ornery wrote:i'd be inclined to listen to solutions from someone that has a solvent state government.

you're state isn't, therefore i don't.

Then take a look at North Dakota. 3.5% unemploymentand they have the country's only State Bank...that bank pays for infrastructure in ND, 1% loans to farmers and has about i Billion in reserves. They're doing something right. State banks would remove 1/3 the cost of any state's construction projects...imagine that? Now ask yourself what ass aholic entity would want to keep that from the people....both Dems and Reps need it? Yep...ya guessed it....Wall St.

The austerity script is well developed.. Argentina and the Asian tigers all had their turn. The script is always the same. GOV institutes crushing taxes to pay the banks. The banks threaten a cutoff of credit if the program is not instituted. GOV taxes the crap out of the middle class.
Iceland was a different story. They told the banks to shove it. They had a relatively short "bad" period and now, they are doing better. Ireland did what the banks said to do. Ireland is NOT going to make it. There is no possible way to service the debt. Austerity kills the economy so bad that it can't generate the money to pay the debt.

Evidently, the banks are not insisting on crushing taxes for America. Presumably, the banks don't want to kill the global reserve currency. Presumably, they don't want to take a chance on a default. They are risking killing the reserve status with all the printing. It appears that they are only buying time. The default looks to appear anyway.

I have a long post but no link on a different story. Some years ago, Malaysia managed to commit IMF heresy. Here's the story;

HOW MALAYSIA GOT AWAY WITH IMF HERESY
by Margaret Legum
On September 1, 1998, Mahathir Mohamed, Prime Minister of Malaysia, made a very angry broadcast. It was not entirely unexpected: a year earlier when all the Asian currencies were being deserted by international capital, he had used some very undiplomatic language - including 'moron' and 'brigand' - to describe George Soros personally. But the September broadcast was different: the war of words gave way to action.

Dr Mahathir announced that the ringgit (Malaysia's currency) would no longer circulate outside the country - any then in banks abroad would have one month to get home, after which they would be worthless. The government would fix the exchange rate - later set at 3.8 ringgit to one US dollar. He also restricted the repatriation of profits made by foreigners from trading shares. Non-residents would have restricted access to the ringgit. Investments abroad by residents for non-trade purposes would require permission. In other words he put out of bounds speculation in the value of the Malaysian currency. He also reinforced measures to expand the economy by low interest rates, increased government expenditure and help for the banks.

As a solution to Malaysia's problems this was greeted with derision by all Western governments, financial institutions and the pundits. All of Malaysia's equally ravaged neighbours - Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Thailand - were obediently following IMF prescriptions about how to recover: tight fiscal and monetary controls, and free trade and capital flows. Malaysia had done the same for the first year after the crash. The result had been continued depreciation of all their currencies. The ringgit had fallen by 35%, and the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange composite index by 52%. Mahathir had had enough. His heresy was heard with disbelief and predicted to lead to disaster.
Take a step back. Before the financial crash in 1997/8 the then-called 'Asian Tiger' states had astonished the world by the rapidity of their economic growth - of the order of 1,500% in four decades. There were several contributing factors. The neo-liberal Washington Consensus put it down entirely to export-led production based on total liberalisation of the economies - labour prepared to work without restriction, privatisation, unregulated capital markets and untrammeled competition through unrestricted trade. Some of that was true but not all of it.

In fact, the 'Tiger' governments had regulated their economies: they invested carefully in those enterprises that they reckoned could make an impact in export markets, and those which were labour intensive. They opened their markets to competition from abroad only when they were good and ready to compete. (Unlike the African countries, including South Africa, who were 'persuaded' to drop tariffs as an apparently vain incentive to foreign investment.) They did, however, open their currency exchanges and were rewarded with floods of both investment and speculative capital. And they kept the activities of trade unions minimal, so that labour was 'flexible' in its demands. Poor people worked long and hard.

The crash came suddenly, following rumours that the financial institutions in some places were 'over-borrowed' and vulnerable to withdrawal. It spread like wildfire, the whole region being tarred with the same brush. It also spread - totally irrationally - to all countries considered to be vaguely in the same 'middle-income developing' category. South Africans, for instance, watched helpless as the rand nose-dived. Why?

Because speculative capital is engaged in the business of second-guessing itself rather than understanding economies. The herd instinct is highly sensitive to rumour and associative innuendo. With hindsight the IMF blamed the crash on 'lack of transparency': the suggestion was that not enough information led to mistaken over-investment. Few believe that any more: the fact was that the 'over-borrowing' was plain for all to see. Investors did not want to see it while the going seemed good - just as today they do not want to see the bubble building on the American bourses.

The devastation was enormous in Asia. Before the crash Malaysia's annual growth rate had averaged some 8.7%, inflation was below 4%, the unemployment rate 2.5%. Its external debt was small, with a debt-service ratio of 6.1%. The national savings rate was 38.5%.
As a result of the crash, real GDP growth went into the negative, falling to minus 25.2% in 1998, and struggled up to 1.9% in 1999. Savings and investment nearly halved. Both net domestic assets and the capital account balance went into negative. Literally millions of people became unemployed. The same, or worse, was happening in the other 'Tiger' states.

Following Mahathir's defiance, he set up a National Economic Action Council (NEAC) to make detailed policy for the various sectors of the economy. In principle trade was not affected, but for some months non-essential imports were restricted. The economy is gradually being re-introduced into the globalised market at the pace the government reckons will be best for its citizens. By mid-2000 profits from investment were allowed to be repatriated - provided the capital had been in the country for at least a year, otherwise it would be subject to an export tax.

Three years on what has happened? Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from the IMF. In July 2000 it concluded an 'Article IV Consultation' with Malaysia. This is a bilateral discussion with a member country to collect information and discuss economic policies. In August and September the IMF published successive 'Public Information Notices' summarising its Board's discussions following the Consultation . This is what it acknowledged. "The Malaysian economy has recovered from the 'sharp decline' of 1998, 'which had had a more severe impact on economic activity than expected' Domestic demand had fallen by 26%. Real GDP growth is now over 5.5%, the manufacturing sector growth is 13%. Capacity utilisation in many industries has reached pre-crisis levels. Inflation is below 2%. "Directors broadly agreed that the regime of capital controls - which was intended by the authorities to be temporary - had produced more positive results than many observers had initially expected". Foreign inward investment has resumed "aided by the upgrading of Malaysia's ratings and the reinclusion of Malaysia in the Morgan Stanley Capital Index at end-May.. The Kuala Lumpur Stock Composite Index recovered by 39% during 1999, and rose further by 10% this year, while most neighbouring countries' indices fell."

It is worth quoting that sentence in full, because it shows that, in simple terms, Malaysia has fully regained the confidence of the investing fraternity. This is a major lesson of this story. People who want to invest capital on the ground - as opposed to speculatively - are suited by a stable currency and stable government policies. Malaysia's recovery has been led by its domestic investors - they make up some 97% of new investment - and they are pulling in international capital in their wake. There was never any evidence that economic growth was a product of foreign investment - foreign capital goes where the economy is already working and the prospects of profit are good. The measures taken by the Malaysian authorities provided that environment while discouraging speculative capital. That is the best of both worlds.
The result is a stronger balance of payments on capital and current accounts. For the whole of 1999 there was a surplus of RM 42 billion, or 15% of GDP. Export growth is the highest among the crisis-hit countries. The annual rate of inflation is down to 3%. The other 'Tiger' economies have also recovered to some extent, but later and slower and from a deeper depression

What conclusions can be drawn from the Malaysian experience? The IMF fails to draw them, falling back on its old terms of reference for the future. It has 'commended the authorities for the implementation of policies that have placed the economy on a path of recovery.'

But it encourages the government to be more transparent about the 'potential liabilities of the public sector' and to give 'explicit recognition' to the 'role of privatised infrastructure projects'. It wants a removal of the ceiling on interest rates and 'greater flexibility' in managing exchange rates to facilitate their 'liberalisation'.
The IMF it seems has learnt nothing. By contrast, Malaysia's experience shows:

Â¨ Obedience to IMF prescriptions does not work in promoting growth in developing economies. A government can swallow its hard medicine to the last drop and continue to sink. Trevor Manual, our own Finance Minister, has cause to complain that he has done the bidding of the international financial institutions to the letter, and still failed to attract the capital and restore the rand as they promised.

Â¨ It is possible for a government acting on its own to defy the Washington Consensus over prudent management of its economy without collapsing. By so doing it can win their respect, even if reluctant.
Â¨ Fixed exchange rates can constitute an incentive to investors who consider a fixed rate reduces risk and make planning easier.
Â¨ A national economy can be grown from within, both in terms of its economic base and in terms of its capital growth.
In fact the World Bank, unlike the IMF, was always cautious about condemning Mahathir. It thought his policies could make sense provided they were well implemented and intended to last for a limited period only.

Finally, Mahathir makes a point often overlooked, but relevant to more than the drama over his own country. 'More than $1 trillion of the purchasing power of the East Asian nations has been destroyed. The political fallout is disastrous, with governments collapsing, law and order breaking down, people raped and killed, property looted and shortages of all kinds of necessities including food and medicine.' (Daily News Kuala Lumpur, May 8, 1999)

Later, at the Second World Knowledge Conference in 2000, he said: 'There is a great deal of "globaloney" about globalisation..I have no doubt it will be brought to an abrupt end by the multitudes of the world if .unbridled and unconscionable capitalism, bereft of ethics, morality and caring rides roughshod over the welfare of the people.'
Hyperbole apart - and whatever one thinks of Mahathir as a democrat, his words have a prophetic ring in the decade after Seattle. There is a growing tide of understanding that the prescriptions of the IMF, far from useful for all countries, were in fact in service to the rich countries of the North and the West. This is now seen to be unacceptable: it leads not only to grinding poverty for millions in the North as well as the South but also to vast social upheaval. New prescriptions must be found to end the dangers of global footloose capital. What Malaysia shows is that individual countries can contribute to that search: they need permission from no one.

----ooOoo----

[The link bar feature is not available in this web]

IMF admits Malaysia actions worked
The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamed drew the ire of the IMF and ridicule of other Asian states upon himself when he let it be known on 1 September 1998 that Malaysiaâ€™s currency, the ringgit, was to be protected from international currency speculation.
Margaret Legum writes: -
"Dr Mahathir announced that the ringgit (Malaysia's currency) would no longer circulate outside the country - any then in banks abroad would have one month to get home, after which they would be worthless. The government would fix the exchange rate - later set at 3.8 ringgit to one US dollar. He also restricted the repatriation of profits made by foreigners from trading shares. Non-residents would have restricted access to the ringgit. Investments abroad by residents for non-trade purposes would require permission.
In other words he put out of bounds speculation in the value of the Malaysian currency. He also reinforced measures to expand the economy by low interest rates, increased government expenditure and help for the banks.
This went against IMF prescriptions, yet it worked, and even drew this reluctant acknowledgement from the IMF in a report published in the Autumn of 2000:
Start of IMF report: "The Malaysian economy has recovered from the 'sharp decline' of 1998, which had had a more severe impact on economic activity than expected'. Domestic demand had fallen by 26%. Real GDP growth is now over 5.5%, the manufacturing sector growth is 13%. Capacity utilisation in many industries has reached pre-crisis levels. Inflation is below 2%. 'Directors broadly agreed that the regime of capital controls - which was intended by the authorities to be temporary - had produced more positive results than many observers had initially expected'. Foreign inward investment has resumed, aided by the upgrading of Malaysia's ratings and the reinclusion of Malaysia in the Morgan Stanley Capital Index at end-May..The Kuala Lumpur Stock Composite Index recovered by 39% during 1999, and rose further by 10% this year, while most neighbouring countries' indices fell." End of IMF report.
Malaysia has fully regained the confidence of investors. The major lesson of this story, writes Margaret Legum, is that:
"People who want to invest capital on the ground - as opposed to speculatively - are suited by a stable currency and stable government policies. Malaysia's recovery has been led by its domestic investors - they make up some 97% of new investment - and they are pulling in international capital in their wake. There was never any evidence that economic growth was a product of foreign investment â€“ foreign capital goes where the economy is already working and the prospects of profit are good. The measures taken by the Malaysian authorities provided that environment while discouraging speculative capital. That is the best of both worlds."
This is not quite the way the IMF sees it. Along with its commendations it "encourages the government to be more transparent about the 'potential liabilities of the public sector' and to give 'explicit recognition' to the 'role of privatized infrastructure projects'. It wants a removal of the ceiling on interest rates and 'greater flexibility' in managing exchange rates to facilitate their 'liberalisation'.
"The IMF it seems has learnt nothing," writes Legum. "By contrast, Malaysia's experience shows:
* Obedience to IMF prescriptions does not work in promoting growth in developing economies. A government can swallow its hard medicine to the last drop, and continue to sink. Trevor Manual, South Africaâ€™s Finance Minister, has cause to complain that he has done the bidding of the international financial institutions to the letter, and still failed to attract the capital and restore the rand as they promised.
* It is possible for a government acting on its own to defy the Washington Consensus over prudent management of its economy without collapsing. By so doing it can win their respect, even if reluctant.
* Fixed exchange rates can constitute an incentive to investors who consider a fixed rate reduces risk and make planning easier.
* A national economy can be grown from within, both in terms of its economic base and in terms of its capital growth.
====================
This above article by Margaret Legum was posted at:
http://mail.unwembi.co.za/mailman/listinfo/sane-views The above is part of a 700-word summary of the 1,800 word original.

I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

What Conservatives Really Want
(Photo: Patrick Feller / The New York Times)

Dedicated to the peaceful protestors in Wisconsin, February 19, 2011.

The central issue in our political life is not being discussed. At stake is the moral basis of American democracy.

The individual issues are all too real: assaults on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting and on and on.

Budget deficits are a ruse, as we've seen in Wisconsin, where the Governor turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions, not just in Wisconsin, but seeking to be the first domino in a nationwide conservative movement.

The forces against independent journalism are growing. Help Truthout keep up the fight against ignorance and regression! Support us here.

Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the president has discussed. But deficits are not what really matter to conservatives.

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: empathy â€” citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility â€” acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions. Empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.
The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, "Let the market decide" assumes the market itself is The Decider. The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand). As the ultimate moral authority, there should be no power higher than the market that might go against market values. Thus the government can spend money to protect the market and promote market values, but should not rule over it either through (1) regulation, (2) taxation, (3) unions and worker rights, (4) environmental protection or food safety laws, and (5) tort cases. Moreover, government should not do public service. The market has service industries for that.

Thus, it would be wrong for the government to provide health care, education, public broadcasting, public parks and so on. The very idea of these things is at odds with the conservative moral system. No one should be paying for anyone else. It is individual responsibility in all arenas. Taxation is thus seen as taking money away from those who have earned it and giving it to people who don't deserve it. Taxation cannot be seen as providing the necessities of life for a civilized society, and, as necessary, for business to prosper.

In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word.

Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil. Science should have authority over the market, and so the science of global warming and evolution must be denied. Facts that are inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or explained away. To protect and extend conservative values themselves, the devil's own means can be used against conservatism's immoral enemies, whether lies, intimidation, torture or even death, say, for women's doctors.

Freedom is defined as being your own strict father - with individual, not social, responsibility, and without any government authority telling you what you can and cannot do. To defend that freedom as an individual, you will, of course, need a gun.

This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits are convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with conservative rule in all areas of life.

What is saddest of all is to see Democrats helping them.

Democrats help radical conservatives by accepting the deficit frame and arguing about what to cut. Even arguing against specific "cuts" is working within the conservative frame. What is the alternative? Pointing out what conservatives really want. Point out that there is plenty of money in America, and in Wisconsin. It is at the top. The disparity in financial assets is un-American - the top one percent has more financial assets than the bottom 95 percent. Middle-class wages have been flat for 30 years, while the wealth has floated to the top. This fits the conservative way of life, but not the American way of life.

Democrats help conservatives by not shouting out loud, over and over, that it was conservative values that caused the global economic collapse: lack of regulation and a greed-is-good ethic.

Democrats also help conservatives by what a friend has called "Democratic Communication Disorder." Republican conservatives have constructed a vast and effective communication system, with think tanks, framing experts, training institutes, a system of trained speakers, vast holdings of media and booking agents. Eighty percent of the talking heads on TV are conservatives. Talk matters, because language heard over and over changes brains. Democrats have not built the communication system they need, and many are relatively clueless about how to frame their deepest values and complex truths.

And Democrats help conservatives when they function as policy wonks â€” talking policy without communicating the moral values behind the policies. They help conservatives when they neglect to remind us that pensions are deferred payments for work done. "Benefits" are pay for work, not a handout. Pensions and benefits are arranged by contract. If there is not enough money for them, it is because the contracted funds have been taken by conservative officials and given to wealthy people and corporations instead of to the people who have earned them.

Democrats help conservatives when they use conservative words like "entitlements" instead of "earnings" and speak of government as providing "services" instead of "necessities."

Is there hope?

I see it in Wisconsin, where tens of thousands citizens see through the conservative frames and are willing to flood the streets of their capital to stand up for their rights. They understand that democracy is about citizens uniting to take care of each other, about social responsibility as well as individual responsibility, and about work - not just for your own profit, but to help create a civilized society. They appreciate their teachers, nurses, firemen, police and other public servants. They are flooding the streets to demand real democracy - the democracy of caring, of social responsibility and of excellence, where prosperity is to be shared by those who work and those who serve.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Ever wondered why the DOJ is NOT prosecuting scum bags like Mozilo, preferring instead to seek giant cash settlements? Same happened to Goldman-the Doer of God's Work as scumbag Blankfein likes to point out.
Same happened to the inside traders of American and United put options days before 9/11.....no other companies had such high volume activity, yet the SEC and DOJ say...nothing there, move along now...nothing to see here.

Ever wondered why the DOJ is NOT prosecuting scum bags like Mozilo, preferring instead to seek giant cash settlements? Same happened to Goldman-the Doer of God's Work as scumbag Blankfein likes to point out.Same happened to the inside traders of American and United put options days before 9/11.....no other companies had such high volume activity, yet the SEC and DOJ say...nothing there, move along now...nothing to see here.

BAD programming. "In fact, behavioral science tells us that bankers and politicians are lying to us 93% of the time. Itâ€™s 13 times more likely Wall Street is telling you a lie than the truth. "
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/market ... genumber=1"One of Americaâ€™s leading behavioral finance gurus, University of Chicago Prof. Richard Thaler, explains: â€œThink of the human brain as a personal computer with a very slow processor and a memory system that is small and unreliable.â€

I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

In Ireland, the banks went bust. GOV [the people, unwillingly] promised to bail out the banks. The PEOPLE have just tossed out the GOV. The EMU says,,, you STILL owe us the money that your GOV promised. The people are now saying "NOT so fast"
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot. ... tions.htmlThe EMU knows that they can't allow any kind of rebellion to start. The party that got tossed out was called " Fianna Fail ". Somehow putting "fail" in the name doesn't sound like a good idea,,, regardless of what it means in Gaelic. Reportedly, the bailout question requires a popular vote. It is certain that the EU will do all it can to block a referendum.

The investors who bought the bonds thought that they were buying no-risk instruments. Since they were not aware of the credit bubble, they didn't know that the bonds were high-risk. Like all investors, they took a risk. They were unaware of the risk. That doesn't mean that they should be able to forgo the loss. The loss should be mostly apportioned to those who risked capital to make a PROFIT. The bonds generally benefited the populace so they should suffer a part of the loss too. The investors traded risk for profit so they should carry most of the burden.

I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

Good for them! I hate Chase and don't much care for the other big three either. I hope there are some criminal charges thrown in there too. It would be nice to see some big shot executives get thrown in the slammer.

JKhttp://www.mudskippercafe.comWhen I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.

Ron Paul: Chairman Bernanke, did you order the printing of $4 trillion to be given to Wall Street bankers?
John Boehner: You donâ€™t have to answer that question!
Ben Bernanke: Iâ€™ll answer the question!
[to Paul]
Ben Bernanke: You want answers?
Ron Paul: I think Iâ€™m entitled.
Ben Bernanke: You want answers?
Ron Paul: I want the truth!
Ben Bernanke: You canâ€™t handle the truth!
[pauses]
Ben Bernanke: Son, we live in a world that has Wall Street bankers, and those bankers have to be enriched by men with printing presses. Whoâ€™s gonna do it? You? You, Representative Ryan? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the Middle Class, and you curse the Federal Reserve. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That the US Dollarâ€™s death, while tragic, probably enriched Wall Street bankers. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, benefits Wall Street bankers. You donâ€™t want the truth because deep down in places you donâ€™t talk about at Tea Parties, you want me on that printing press, you need me on that printing press. We use words like debasement, inflation, systematic risk. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending banking interests. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very excess liquidity that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a computer terminal, and create a few trillion dollars. Either way, I donâ€™t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
Ron Paul: Did you order the printing of $4 trillion?
Ben Bernanke: I did the job Iâ€¦
Ron Paul: Did you order the printing of $4 trillion?
Ben Bernanke: Youâ€™re Goddamn right I did!
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=11907

I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

So, the cross-eyed little Kroll ass kissing son of a bitch governor republican dirt bag threw the gauntlet down brothers and sisters. Are you gonna roll over and let the republican lie kill you now or are you gonna fight back, kick em in the nuts and call a general strike?

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Other than trying to recall them, a general statewide strike is their only option. But it will be costly to the strikers. Hopefully more costly to the state and embarrassing to the governor. The legislature couldn't have been more blatant in showing their true colors. How did they do that without their all mighty quorum?

JKhttp://www.mudskippercafe.comWhen I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.

cowboyangel wrote:So, the cross-eyed little Kroll ass kissing son of a bitch governor republican dirt bag threw the gauntlet down brothers and sisters. Are you gonna roll over and let the republican lie kill you now or are you gonna fight back, kick em in the nuts and call a general strike?

This is outright war on workers. The general strike may in fact spread to other states. Workers did not cause this financial collapse. Wall St. bankers and speculators did. They have been bailed out and they have riches beyond most folks wildest dreams. It is they who've declared war on us and we will fight them back. Thank Unions and pray that Union leadership resists its craven posture to ruling democrats. We are on our own and we can shut this goddamn corrupt country down if we work together. It's called democracy and solidarity.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich.

Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.

And I can see why. For us to admit that we have let a small group of men abscond with and hoard the bulk of the wealth that runs our economy, would mean that we'd have to accept the humiliating acknowledgment that we have indeed surrendered our precious Democracy to the moneyed elite. Wall Street, the banks and the Fortune 500 now run this Republic -- and, until this past month, the rest of us have felt completely helpless, unable to find a way to do anything about it.

Dougly, parts of America are not broke. We know that corporate profits are WAY up. They are doing a very good job of holding on to that money.Federal. "Individual income tax receipts rose 26.6% to $422.8 billion on a fiscal year-to-date basis. Corporate income tax receipts fell 15.9% on a fiscal year-to-date basisâ€¦â€

I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

The bankers screamed that the whole country would crash if they didn't get $ 700 billion of bailout. This article is an excellent analysis of EVERY aspect of their claims. Every one of their claims is proved to be bogus.
http://mises.org/daily/5113/The-End-of- ... Capitalism

I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

True, he did mention that a Harvard MBA couldn't figure out the derivatives. The guy presents some pretty dense info. MSM presents pablum. I may do excerpts but, I would never presume to talk down to readers thinking that they don't understand. Essentially, he addresses all the claims that were used to justify the $ 700 billion bailout. Then, he methodically refutes every one of them. He proves that the banks would have suffered losses but that the economy would have sailed on.

I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

Evidently, Mozilo wasn't such a bad guy after all. He got a fine. This guy took out a liar-loan and is in jail for it. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/busin ... .html?_r=3The IRS watched him for a long time trying to find some kind of screwup that they could use to prosecute.

I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

If you are wealthy, you are living in the Golden Age of your American Dream, and it's a damned fine time to be alive. The two major political parties are working hammer and tong to bless you and keep you. The laws are being re-written - often by fiat, and in defiance of court orders - to strengthen the walls separating you and your wealth from the motley masses. Your stock portfolio, mostly made by and for oil and war, continues to swell. Your banks and Wall Street shops destroyed the economy for everyone except you, and not only did they get away with it, they were handed a vast dollop of taxpayer cash as a bonus prize.

The little people probably crack you up when you bother to think about them. Their version of the American Dream is a ragged blanket too short to cover them, but they still buy into it, and that's the secret of your strength in the end. So many of them walk into the voting booths and solemnly vote against their own best interests, and for yours, because the American Dream makes them think they, too, will be rich someday. They won't - you've made sure of that - but so long as they keep believing it, your money will continue to roll in.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision swept away the last tattered shreds of the faÃ§ade of fairness in politics and electioneering, and now you own the whole store. You can use your vast financial resources to lie on a national level now, lie with your bare face hanging out, because it works. You're not the bad guy in America. Teachers, cops, firefighters, union members and public-sector employees are the bad guys, the reason for all our economic woes. NPR and Planned Parenthood are the bad guys. You did that, and when governors like Scott Walker rampage through worker's rights on your dime, you chuckle into your sleeve and enjoy your interest rate.

We're firing teachers and missiles simultaneously, to poach a line from Jon Stewart, and the inherent disconnect fails to sink in among those serving as dray horses for your greed and ambition. They're in the traces, bellowing about what you want them to focus on thanks to your total control of the "mainstream" news media, and they plow your fields with the power of their incoherent, misdirected rage.

They pay their taxes. Isn't that a hoot? They pay their taxes dutifully and annually, and that money gets shunted right to you and your friends, thanks to the politicians who love you and the laws that favor you, not to mention the wars that sustain you. They pay their taxes when they should just pay you, right? Talk about getting rid of government waste. They should just pay you directly and cut out the middle man, because it all goes to the same place in the end. You.

You are General Electric, and you paid no taxes in 2010. You made $14.2 billion in worldwide profits, $5.1 billion of which was made in America, and you're tax burden amounted to a big fat zero. In fact, you claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion, thanks to your anti-tax lobbying efforts in Washington and your use of offshore tax havens that protect and defend your profit margin.

You are ExxonMobil, and you paid no taxes in 2009. In fact, you got a $156 million return.

Independent journalism is important. Click here to get Truthout stories sent to your email.

You are Bank of America, and despite receiving a massive chunk of the taxpayer-funded bailout, despite recording a profit of $4.4 billion, you paid no taxes and received a $1.9 billion rebate.

You are Chevron, and you made $10 billion in 2009. You paid no taxes, and got a $19 million refund.

You are Citigroup, and you paid no taxes despite earning more than $4 billion, and despite getting a sizeable chunk of the taxpayer-funded bailout.

Your favorite part of it all?

The part that makes you laugh out loud?

It's when you hear the politicians you own talk about "shared sacrifices" and "fiscal responsibility." Man, that's a hoot. You watch them rave and froth on Capitol Hill about shutting down the government because the country doesn't have enough money to fund "entitlement programs" the little people have been paying into for decades. The very term - "entitlement" - cracks you up; how is it an entitlement if people paid for it? Nobody asks that question, of course. Nobody asks about cutting the bloated defense budget. Nobody asks where the billions diverted to Iraq and Afghanistan actually went, or where the money for Libya is going. For damned sure, nobody demands that you pony up and pay your fair share. You made sure of that, and the show goes on.

The United States of America has undergone a powerful transformation over the course of a single generation, and you are right up there in the catbird seat, watching it all unfold. For you, the New American Dream is "I got mine, kiss my ass, work and die (if you can find work, sucker), and pay me." For everyone else, the New American Dream is about simple survival, about running as fast as they can while going inexorably backwards.

Maybe you can even see the cancer eating away at the country that has treated you so royally, but you don't really care. You are safe and comfortable behind your gilded walls.

For now, anyway.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981